By order to show cause signed by this Court on December 17, 2004 the claimant's
attorneys of record, Maynard, O'Connor, Smith & Catalinotto (Robert A.
Rausch, Esquire, of counsel) seek to be relieved as claimant's attorneys in this
matter pursuant to CPLR 321 (b) (2). Neither claimant nor the defendant
formally opposed[1] the motion which is denied as
provided below. Although a client may discharge an attorney without cause at any
time, there must be a showing of good cause and reasonable notice before an
attorney will be permitted to terminate the attorney/client relationship
(see, Matter of Dunn, 205 NY 398, 403; Lake v M.P.C.
Trucking, 279 AD2d 813; Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-110 [22
NYCRR § 1200.15]); People v Woods, 117 Misc 2d 1, 2). The court is
satisfied from the affidavit of service submitted on the motion that claimant
received reasonable notification of her attorneys' application to
withdraw.

Although the affirmation of Robert A. Rausch in support of the motion sets
forth factual allegations tending to prove that good cause exists to permit the
law firm's withdrawal, the determination whether to permit withdrawal lies
within the Court's discretion (People v Salquerro, 107 Misc 2d 155). It
is incumbent upon the moving party to demonstrate that the underlying action is
without merit, there has been a breakdown in the attorney/client relationship or
that irreconcilable differences have arisen which would make it unreasonably
difficult, if not impossible, for the attorney to carry out his or her
employment effectively (Valente v Seiden, 244 AD2d 799, 800; Ashker v
International Bus. Machs. Corp., 201 AD2d 765; see, Code of
Professional Responsibility DR 2 -110 [c][1][a] [22 NYCRR § 1200.15
(c)(1)(i)] and DR 2-110 [c][1][d] [22 NYCRR § 1200.15 (c) (1) (iv)]).

While claimant's failure to keep her scheduled appointments and the other
actions complained of by movant have undoubtedly damaged the attorney/client
relationship it does not appear to the Court to have been irretrievably broken.
Claimant's attorneys have expended much time and effort in guiding this matter
through discovery to its current trial-ready status. When an attorney assumes
the representation of a client with full knowledge of a prior attorney's court
ordered withdrawal from the case due to the client's alleged failure to
cooperate, the successor attorney assumes a risk that history may repeat
itself. This is indeed what has happened here.

The nature of this case (alleged exposure to chemicals in the workplace) and
the passage of time since its accrual in July/August 2000 militate against the
further delay granting the instant motion would certainly engender. Moreover,
claimant's alleged mental and emotional difficulties suggest that her interests
would be best served by denying the motion and continuing her current legal
representation.

The Court, therefore, denies the motion in the exercise of its discretion.
Trial of this matter on February 16, 2005 shall proceed as scheduled.

Claimant, who informally requested the denial of this motion, must hereafter
fully cooperate with her attorneys in the preparation of the case for trial and
must be guided by their counsel and advice.

January 21, 2005Saratoga
Springs, New York

HON. FRANCIS T. COLLINSJudge of the Court of
Claims

The Court considered the following papers:

Order to show cause dated December 17, 2004;

Affirmation of Robert A. Rausch Dated December 13, 2004 with exhibit;

Letter dated January 7, 2005 from Susan Spallane.

[1]Five days subsequent to the return date set
forth in the Order to Show Cause claimant faxed a letter to the Court requesting
that the Court deny the motion.